| XBK Chat (unofficial archive) A meeting place for past members of Brahma Kumaris
FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups
Profile You have no new messages Log out
The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition Goto page 1, 2 Next
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author | Message
--- | ---
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:10 pm Post subject: The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition |
Here is a link that will take you to a review of John Walliss' book "The Brahma Kumaris as a ‘reflexive tradition’: Responding to late modernity" http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000108/index.html Walliss has lectured at Sheffield University and University of Warwick, and has written quite a bit on the Brahma Kumaris. This book was published in 2002. I have not read the book but, judging from the review, it seems quite dry and academic. The review, by Paul van der Velde of Nijmegen University, in the Netherlands, is informative but is replete with inaccuracies - some minor and some significant. One hopes that these factual errors are not taken from the book itself. In my experience, most academics, who have not actually been deeply involved with the BKs, tend to miss subtle distinctions and so misstate the facts. Some of this is the result of the western mechanistic construct of man. The review mentions Walliss' observations about a certain "ambivalence" in the BK strategy in the Western world. I myself have noticed this ambivalence and to me, it is almost a contradiction. Perhaps I'll go into that later on, in another post. Gotta run!
hanuman Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 174 |
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:28 am Post subject: BK As A Reflexive Tradition |
Atma, I examined the review. The author's report on the BKs lacks two fundamental tools used by anthropologists in their ethnographic investigations. These tools are the use of the emic approach aka participitant observation and the etic approach, the use of the scientific method in the investigation of the culture. If Mr. Wallis, had spent five years plus as a Raj yogi, and scientifically observing and documenting the activities of BKs, then his report would have had greater content validity. In addition, there should have been in the report sets of qualitative and quantitative data validating the author's hypotheses or thoughts on the BK movement. Profesor Evan Wentz, the author of The Tibitian Book of The Dead, a classic on yoga was one of the first Western individuals to conuct scholarly investigations on yogis. Dr. Robert Thurman of Columbia University was a Tibetian monk, prior to his many books on Tibetian Buddhism. Dr. Herbert Benson of the Mind Body Institute at Harvard Medical School, have team members who practice meditative techniques. It would seem as though I am preaching to the converted. However, any sociology investigation without the emic and etic approaches cannot be considered strong scholarship. The BKSO is a sub-culture within the large global culture and the mission of the organization is directed change, transformation of the world to Ram Raj.There has been some grey areas in the efforts of the BKs with respect to the directed change in Western society. The languages of communication by people in a Western society are different than those outside the West. _________________ Om Shanti, To my brothers and sisters. Love to you all, Errol bhai
Guest |
Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:39 am Post subject: |
I read this too some time ago. Hanuman is right.
hanuman Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 174 |
Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:20 am Post subject: The Brahma Kumaris As A Reflexive Tradition |
I think a great mistake that any one can make in their studies of the BKs is to misunderstand their major mission; the establishment of Ram Raj. While other organizations may make similar claims, the focus of the agents of change and support of SB are absent in those groups. The two factors cannot be investigated fully, with out an anthropologic approach. Adapting to the current era of the Information Age has been a problem for many lokik and non-lokik institutions. The BKs are no exception. _________________ Om Shanti, To my brothers and sisters. Love to you all, Errol bhai
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:02 am Post subject: Re: The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition |
Atma wrote:
Here is a link that will take you to a review of John Walliss' book "The Brahma Kumaris as a ‘reflexive tradition’: Responding to late modernity" http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000108/index.html The review, by Paul van der Velde of Nijmegen University, in the Netherlands, is informative but is replete with inaccuracies - some minor and some significant. One hopes that these factual errors are not taken from the book itself.
Dear Atma, Sorry for resurrecting an old post but I have only just registered on this forum. I am an xbk - I got to the murli stage but not the Madhuban stage. Anyway I was wondering what do think are the significant inaccuracies in this book review?
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava, Welcome to XBKchat! Au contraire, I am delighted that you have breathed new life into my old post...even though you have given me work. Of necessity, this will be a long post. Your question prompted me to revisit the review. I printed it out, re-read it and marked it up. On reflection, my comment about the review being “replete with inaccuracies” was too harsh. There are a few inaccuracies. However, the review provides a wealth of factual information. Some of that information is very interesting and significant, particularly as relates to the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement. I learnt things that I did not know before. More about that later. I guess what irritated me, and made my judgment harsh, was a central omission in the review (and in the book too?). There is not a single mention of Shiva, Shiv Baba or Bapdada. Outsiders need to understand something: the real founder, and driving force behind the Brahma Kumaris, is NOT Dada Lekhraj, or Brahma Baba, as he was later known. The founder, the instigator, is a disembodied being who has given his introduction as the Supreme Soul Shiva – GOD. When the phenomenon first occurred (in 1937 I believe) Dada Lekhraj was in a room which was apparently suffused with a reddish light. His eyes shone and a strange voice spoke thus through him: “I am the blissful self. I am the luminous self. I am Shiva, I am Shiva”. Dada Lekhraj's daughter-in-law witnessed this. I am an XBK. So are many members of this site. We have left the movement. However, I think that many of us, if not most, understand and accept that there is an entity which speaks through medium, giving “knowledge” and directions. That entity, self identified as “Shiv Baba” started everything, and keeps it going. To not grasp that - and to simply regard Dada Lekhraj as the founder of the Brahma Kumaris - is a huge mistake. Let me quote from the second page of the review, under the heading “2 The Brahma Kumaris”.
Quote:
The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dada Lekhraj, who is considered by members to be ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’
The words in single quotation marks are apparently taken by the reviewer from page 33 of Walliss’ book. This is a major miscomprehension of the reality; in common parlance - a howler. BK members do NOT believe that. What they believe is that it is the disembodied entity Shiva who is ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’. The distinction is crucial – of vital importance. One would understand if this was missed by someone who only had a nodding acquaintance with the BKs. But for someone who has studied the movement in some depth not to grasp this is puzzling. Even if the writer himself does not believe that there is an entity, or that the entity is Shiva, to not deal with the belief is to go far off the track. All Brahma Kumaris followers believe that this disembodied entity is God, and is the real founder and motivator of the movement. It is this belief that keeps them going. As mentioned, even those who have left the movement understand that a disembodied entity is at play (or at work?) Now, opinions have been expressed on this site that “channeling” is not a phenomenon unique to the BKs. I agree. However, I believe in giving credit where it is due. So what I have said, and will restate now, is that the Brahma Kumaris are unique as an organization in this sense: not only are they guided by a disembodied entity, but that guidance has been systematic, consistent, regular, ongoing and “successful” in the sense that, under it, the organization has grown significantly and has avoided major pitfalls and scandals. So, all of this considered, the organization is unique. It is this glaring omission which irritated me. When will ‘outsiders’ grasp this central issue? Even after Brahma Baba passed on, Shiva continued his appearances, through a new medium – Dadi Gulzar. The extract above, to which I objected, should therefore read: The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dada Lekhraj, who is considered by members to be the first medium for ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’ Get the difference? It’s subtle but huge. This omission, the failure to grasp the distinction, is what prompted me to comment on the “Western mechanistic construct of man”. That construct does not allow for disembodied beings and mediumship. This miscomprehension causes the reviewer to state (on page 3 of the review) “Lekhraj himself changed his name into Prajapita Brahma (the father of humanity) and later on to Brahma Brahma, ‘Father Brahma”. Again, this is incorrect. It is the disembodied being Shiva who directed Lekhraj to make these name changes. Even if Walliss and the reviewer Paul van der Velde feel that Lekhraj was deluded or schizophrenic, and that there was / is no other being involved, one has to understand that this was Lekhraj’s belief, and it is also the belief of the BK following. Let’s be fair. Lekhraj, in doing practically everything he did, felt that he was following the guidance of Shiva - not his own directions. On page 4 of the review, van der Velde writes that in 1947 the BKs moved their HQ from Sindh to “Mount Abu in Gujurat”. In fact, Mount Abu is in the State of Rajasthan. On page 5 he states that “After (Brahma Baba’s) death…he became a main focus of devotion”. This is a distortion. To be sure, as the human founder, and first medium of Shiva, Brahma Baba enjoys a position of regard, respect and admiration among BKs. However, they do not worship him. They do not focus on him in their meditation. The devotion and the focus of meditation is on Shiva, who they consider to be the bodiless Supreme Soul. True, pictures of Brahma Baba appear prominently in BK centres. Some – the PBKs for example – find that objectionable. However, above Brahma’s picture, there is usually an oval plastic cover with a pinhole light. That symbolises Shiva - as a point of light. It is that point of light – the Supreme Soul Shiva – which is the focus for BKs. The review states “Lekhraj gave his first Murli after his death on the 21th (sic) of january 1969. In fact the Murli was delivered by Bapdada – the combined form of Bramha and Shiva - with Shiva taking the active / speaking role. The review informs that the term “reflexive tradition” is used to denote social reaction to the dangers (environmental, nuclear) of industrial society. According to the Oxford dictionary, the word “reflexive” can be either a noun or adjective, and is given this major major meaning:
Quote:
...implying subject’s action on himself or itself
Under either or both rubrics, I find Walliss’ use of the term "reflexive tradition", in relation to the BKs, to be somewhat strained and artificial. I have written enough for now. In another post, I will comment on the significant information (given in the review) about the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement; things that should be known and considered by XBKs and others.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 3:56 pm Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
Uddhava, Let me quote from the second page of the review, under the heading “2 The Brahma Kumaris”.
Quote:
The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dada Lekhraj, who is considered by members to be ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’
The words in single quotation marks are apparently taken by the reviewer from page 33 of Walliss’ book. This is a major miscomprehension of the reality; in common parlance - a howler. BK members do NOT believe that. What they believe is that it is the disembodied entity Shiva who is ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’. The distinction is crucial – of vital importance....The Brahma Kumaris were founded by Dada Lekhraj, who is considered by members to be the first medium for ‘the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’ Get the difference? It’s subtle but huge.
Hi Atma, Yes the Walliss quote above also jumped out at me as incorrect, but these terms 'medium' and 'incarnation' are quite tricky, and I confess that your own statement above is not completely clear to me. My understanding of the BK teaching is that Shiva aka the Supreme Soul aka God aka the World Father is incorporeal and lives in the incorporeal abode. In order to descend into the corporeal realm, Shiva needed to borrow or employ a human form and he chose for this purpose the body of the soul Dada Lekhraj. For brief periods, Shiva used the body / mouth of Dada Lekhraj in order to reveal the godly knowledge, and this is why Dada Lekhraj is called a medium. I wouldn't use the word 'incarnation' here if only because it has the wrong connotation. Christians for example believe that Jesus is (in some sense) God; Vaisnavs believe that the chariot driver Krishna is God, whereas in BK, the two are distinct - Shiva is Shiva and Dada Lekhraj is Dada Lekhraj. Is this the same point that you are making?
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:05 pm Post subject: |
Uddhava, Your understanding is correct. We are actually 'on the same page'. Regarding "incarnation", what you say is indeed the norm. However, in the case of Shiv Baba, it can be said to be a unique exception. In other words, we can say his is a "temporary" or "visiting" incarnation. I have read hundreds, maybe even thousands, of murlis, but it has been a long time since I looked at one, so I am a bit 'rusty'. However, if my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that Shiva's appearance in this world is regarded as a kind of incarnation - notwithstanding its itinerant or peripatetic nature. In other words, even though he (Shiva) comes and goes, putting in these appearances through medium (first through Brahma Baba and later through Dadi Gulzar) his appearance in this world, as of 1937/8, is loosely referred to as an incarnation. I seem to recall Shiv Baba himself referring to it that way. However, he made this important distinction: He said that God's incarnation is unique in that he appears through the body of a fully grown man, as it would not be appropriate for him to take birth from a mother's womb. The reason is, I suppose, self explanatory. An infant body would not have sufficiently developed faculties to function as a teacher or medium. Additionally, since God is always perfect and karma-free, there is no need for him to go through infancy, childhood etc, and to take the support of humans. Baba said that he alone "incarnates" this way. Even the prophet souls have to take birth in the usual way - as infants. You are correct as regards Jesus and Krishna. Their devotees do regard them as aspects / incarnations of God. But in the case of Brahma Baba, his position is as God's (Shiva's) medium and number one child - not God. This is, of course, within the BK framework of 'knowledge', to which I do not presently subscribe. I am only relating it as a response to your post. I hope this helps.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:15 am Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
Uddhava, Your understanding is correct. We are actually 'on the same page'. Regarding "incarnation", what you say is indeed the norm. However, in the case of Shiv Baba, it can be said to be a unique exception. In other words, we can say his is a "temporary" or "visiting" incarnation. I have read hundreds, maybe even thousands, of murlis, but it has been a long time since I looked at one, so I am a bit 'rusty'. However, if my memory serves me well, I seem to recall that Shiva's appearance in this world is regarded as a kind of incarnation - notwithstanding its itinerant or peripatetic nature. In other words, even though he (Shiva) comes and goes, putting in these appearances through medium (first through Brahma Baba and later through Dadi Gulzar) his appearance in this world, as of 1937/8, is loosely referred to as an incarnation. I seem to recall Shiv Baba himself referring to it that way. However, he made this important distinction: He said that God's incarnation is unique in that he appears through the body of a fully grown man, as it would not be appropriate for him to take birth from a mother's womb. The reason is, I suppose, self explanatory. An infant body would not have sufficiently developed faculties to function as a teacher or medium. Additionally, since God is always perfect and karma-free, there is no need for him to go through infancy, childhood etc, and to take the support of humans. Baba said that he alone "incarnates" this way. Even the prophet souls have to take birth in the usual way - as infants.
Hi Atma, The thing is that words like 'incarnation', 'avatar' and perhaps 'medium' are used, as you say, loosely, ie they mean different things according to the context - Vaisnavism, Christianity, BK etc. There are many so-called avatars living in India today but it seems that the word is used so loosely that it's hard to say what it means. Ie before we can agree or disagree with something, we have to have some clarity about what is being proposed. I agree with you that other main aspects of the more normal meaning of incarnation (eg Krishna, Jesus) are firstly a longer term visit (often the lifetime of the human body) rather than a fleeting coming and going, and secondly the going through (at least the appearance of) the cycle of birth and death. There are some unorthodox / heretical Christian views that object to this on the basis that it is undignified and unworthy for God to be seen in the position of a helpless baby or dying man. According to the orthodox Christian view though, it's not that God 'needs' to be born as live as an infant - God doesn't 'need' anything. Anyway I also agree with you that the term 'incarnation' is used in BK. Going back to Walliss then, he describes Dadi Lekhraj as
Quote:
'the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’
Are we saying then that this is ok but 'incarnation' in the BK sense has a unique meaning, and this meaning should be explained in order to avoid confusion with other non-BK meanings of incarnation?
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:29 am Post subject: |
Dear Atma and all, Going back to the book review http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000108/index.html it says
Quote:
In 1936, at the age of sixty, his wife advised him to retire and to direct his life towards spiritual pursuits and it is at this time that he begins to receive his visions of Vishnu and Shiva... Lekhraj received a message that he was an avatar (i.e. incarnation) of Krishna.
Does anyone know if this is correct? It seems to suggest that Krishna was an important figure in the early days.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:33 am Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
This is, of course, within the BK framework of 'knowledge', to which I do not presently subscribe.
I should say that I don't presently subscribe to it either
Paul Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 72 |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: Re: The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition |
Uddhava wrote:
I am an xbk - I got to the murli stage but not the Madhuban stage.
Welcome to the club Uddhava I think you'll find kindred spirits here. Can you share a bit more with us? How long was your BK involvement? Did you attend class regularly? What was it about the "knowledge" and your experiences with the BKs that made you break away?
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:49 am Post subject: Re: The Brahma Kumaris as a reflexive tradition |
Paul wrote:
Welcome to the club Uddhava I think you'll find kindred spirits here. Can you share a bit more with us? How long was your BK involvement? Did you attend class regularly? What was it about the "knowledge" and your experiences with the BKs that made you break away?
Hi Paul, Yes I will get round to all this stuff on another thread in the next few days
Atma Joined: 26 Feb 2004 Posts: 98 |
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:46 am Post subject: |
Uddhava wrote:
Going back to Walliss then, he describes Dada Lekhraj as
Quote:
'the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’
Are we saying then that this is ok but 'incarnation' in the BK sense has a unique meaning, and this meaning should be explained in order to avoid confusion with other non-BK meanings of incarnation?
Uddhava, Positive to " 'incarnation' in the BK sense has a unique meaning, and this meaning should be explained in order to avoid confusion with other non-BK meanings of incarnation" Negative to "this is ok" The problem with the way Walliss has put it is that it conveys the meaning of Lekhraj himself being the incarnation of God....and that's wrong. I think the confusion can be allayed if, to borrow from the BK lexicon, we think in 'soul conscious' rather than 'body conscious' terms. The Supreme Soul Shiva and the soul of the medium Lekhraj / Brahma Baba are two different souls. To say that Lekhraj is the incarnation of Shiva is therefore wrong. They are two separate souls. Even though Shiva's 'incarnation' is not permanent, it would be better to say that Lekhraj is the vehicle or medium for 'the incarnation and descent of God, the World Father, into the corporeal world’ In other words, the soul of God / Shiva incarnates in this world through / using the body of Lekhraj. Here, the focus is on the soul of Shiva as God / the one who incarnates - not on the soul of Lekhraj.
uddhava Joined: 20 Jan 2005 Posts: 142 Location: Paramdham |
Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:51 pm Post subject: |
Atma wrote:
However, the review provides a wealth of factual information. Some of that information is very interesting and significant, particularly as relates to the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement. I learnt things that I did not know before. More about that later.... I have written enough for now. In another post, I will comment on the significant information (given in the review) about the background of Brahma Baba and the early years of the movement; things that should be known and considered by XBKs and others.
Atma, are you done here or do you have any more?
Display posts from previous:
| XBK Chat Forum Index -> XBK discussions | All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2
| You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group